robbin

I should have added: the 'good reason' for them not doing so is that it would damage them as well as us! Nobody sensible thinks tariffs are a good idea and I'm sure they don't either (after all, they are in the EU free trade organisation!). So why would they cut off their noses to spite their faces?

"Of course you can choose to believe they are bluffing but I believe they mean what they have explicitly said as they have good reason for doing so."

I genuinely do think they are bluffing. Of course it is in their interests to scare us into voting to remain - they want us to remain. If their politicians said don't worry we will be cooperative in our mutual interests (which is what the German CBI type people are saying) they would be (rightly) worried we would feel confident that it is safe to vote to leave. That would be madness - so yes, I do genuinely think it is an obvious bluff and negotiating position. They would be stupid to say otherwise and they are certainly not stupid.

In any event its all a bit academic - we will never know the truth as there's no real chance of a leave majority vote, I don't think. Just more years of grinding decline while unelected bureaucrats decide our future and get fatter. Then at some point the exposure of the fault-lines in the Euro economic system leading to right wing nutters getting more power (or god forbid control of some member states). Not all will lose out - the poor EU members will obviously get a lot better off as our contributions find their way to them, but the richer states will inevitably be in decline (it's simple arithmetic after all - there's a pot we all pay into and take out of, in varying amounts - there's no voodoo magic that makes the pot grow so we can all take out more than goes in).

I will never be less happy to be proved right, but that's my prediction. It will take a few years, maybe two or three decades, but unless there's major EU reform that seems inevitable to me.

Sounds like Cameron's project fear in reverse, but that's my honest view.

The idea that trade tariffs will be imposed immediately (because it is 'the law')is a nonsense. First of all the minimum period in law of any withdrawal after it is triggered by notice under Art 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is 2 years during which time there are mandatory negotiations between the EU and the party leaving. During that time both parties are very likely to see that protectionism is a nonsense and will only hurt both the EU and UK, so deals will be done and extensions of time agreed in the parties' mutual interests. Before anyone says that's nonsense, here's the reality of what the real influencers in Germany think:

From the BBC about 4 hours ago:

"A German industry boss has said it would be "very, very foolish" if the EU imposes trade barriers on the UK in the event it votes to leave the EU. Markus Kerber, the head of the influential BDI which represents German industry, said his organisation would make the case against such measures.

He said any introduction of tariffs would be "regression to times we thought we'd left behind in the 1970s".

The UK's referendum on whether to leave the EU will be held on Thursday.

"Imposing trade barriers, imposing protectionist measures between our two countries - or between the two political centres, the European Union on the one hand and the UK on the other - would be a very, very foolish thing in the 21st Century," Mr Kerber told the BBC's World Service.

"The BDI would urge politicians on both sides to come up with a trade regime that enables us to uphold and maintain the levels of trade we have, although it will become more difficult." Mr Kerber added that any introduction of tariffs would lead to job losses in Germany and the UK.

"I get that you aren't familiar with all of this which of course is fine but its insane to simply dismiss it as speculation when these are bold face verifiable facts just because they don't dovetail with your world view."

This for me has absolutely characterised my personal experiences of debating with people who are set on voting to Remain.

If you say so.

Crikey, Azira, I just read the rest of your 5.23 post and I do appear to have offended you! So, I will cease the debate here as I don't want things to get personal. I thought I was being reasonably conciliatory but it doesn't seem to have been taken that way. Sorry.

Azira wrote:

"I genuinely didn't. After I read your less than measured reply, I asked my colleagues what they would think if someone was discussing national vs high street banks and, like me, they thought it was someone talking about national-based banks like RBS rather than central banks. I guess a lot of us financial reg lawyers are obtuse, huh."

Fair enough, but those I work with are not. Indeed, in the context of my post (which talked about states (Italy/Spain) defaulting, I'm surprised there could be any such misunderstanding. Maybe your colleagues weren't given that detail, otherwise they may have taken a different view.

Also, it's only really in the USA that "national" banks might have a different meaning - but here we were discussing Europe.

I just don't get all this confident stating of things as facts when I am suspecting you don't actually know (not a criticism - I probably don't either, but it shows the danger of crappy scaremongering debate from both sides). For example, you state as if fact - "immigrants pay taxes (as they have a very high employment rate). They more than cover the costs of the public services they use" - Where are the figure for that please? If it's right its right, but is that even measured?

If you are instinctively in favour of remaining, fine, you are as entitled to your view as anyone else, but stating facts or presuming things as facts upon which other inferences are then drawn, I find rather disconcerting, not to mention unconvincing.

On that note, you also say "The second point is simply the result of how tariffs work Robin. It has nothing to do with a boycott. When trade tariffs are applicable, the cost of imported goods goes up like for like. That's not speculation."

Well, I agree it is not speculation that when tariffs are applicable the costs of goods go up. To be honest that's pretty obvious and I couldn't argue against it. But, it is another statement of fact which is not fact. It is (contrary to what you imply) indeed speculation that there would be tariffs imposed by UK against EU imports. The likelihood is that there would NOT be such tariffs imposed and that we would ultimately do a deal with our EU allies to facilitate the continuation of tariff free trade. Free trade is recognised as in everyone's interests and where we are neighbours and trading countries it would make no sense to raise tariffs. This is something I don't understand about the Remain arguments - our EU allies would not suddenly become enemies and in a trade war with us because we vote to leave in a couple of years time - that's errant nonsense and Cameron scaremongering. Actually, even he hasn't openly or directly said tariffs would be imposed because that's a bonkers suggestion. He just sort of implies it and leaves the fear to the imagination of voters. It seems you have bought into it. I haven't, although the fear tactics are definitely making me nervous as I'm sure they do many others.

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> robbin Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Cameron has always been staunchly in favour of

> Turkey joining the EU.

>

> Strangely, so has Boris.

Indeed. If we stay in - we will be joined by Turkey. It's what the UK govt wants (although just now it is painfully difficult to admit) and it is clearly what EU Commission wants (as they stressed again just 48 hours ago when they said they were "accelerating" turkey's application for EU membership (not the best timing for Cameron that!).

Personally I believe we will stay in, so we will see. Another million or two residents for our NHS and schools to accommodate.

Sorry LM, I don't really follow.

Re (1) I don't see how (as you suggest) the "the UK export business will shrink as the higher cost to customers in the UK market will reduce demand". Firstly, what has demand in the UK market got to do with our exports? Secondly, why will there be higher costs to customers in the UK market? Thirdly, we can still buy from EU - they are hardly going to refuse to sell their products to us! Fourthly, I don't see the link between the UK export business and higher cost to customers in the UK market (even if there was any - which you simply presume without saying why).

Re (2) You postulate "EU imports will also become more expensive increasing price inflation domestically." Why? You can't just say that like it's gospel - why would prices increase? EU exporters will still want to sell to us and will want to stay competitive. Are you suggesting some sort of South African boycott of the UK by the EU?? We will still be allies and close trading partners - not sworn enemies.

Cameron might say the sky will fall in, but that doesn't make it so. The world won't start turning the other way on its axis causing tsunamis in the UK. Trolls with French accents won't really jump out from under Thames bridges and eat us up. Those are about the only scare stories I haven't yet heard from Cameron. But there's still 3 days to go...

Cameron has always been staunchly in favour of Turkey joining the EU. He is only backtracking (sort of) now out of desperation...

This from 2 years ago (before the referendum was announced)

7:51PM GMT 09 Dec 2014 - Daily Telegraph

David Cameron has said that he still ?very much supports? Turkey joining the European Union, despite his Government's inability to control numbers of EU migrants coming to the UK. The Prime Minister was quizzed about his support for Turkey?s accession to the EU during a visit to Turkey to meet the country?s Prime Minister and President.

Mr Cameron said he had discussed Turkey?s accession to the EU during talks in Ankara on Tuesday afternoon with Ahmet Davutoglu, the Turkish Prime Minister.

The visit was his first since 2010 when he told the Turks the backed the country?s goal of joining the EU. He said then that he wanted to ?make the case? for Turkey?s EU membership. Asked if he still felt that way despite his Government?s inability to control inward migration from EU countries and bring net migration down to the tens of thousands of people, he said that he had discussed it again with Turkish Prime Minister.

He said: ?In terms of Turkish membership of the EU, I very much support that. ?That?s a longstanding position of British foreign policy which I support. We discussed that again in our talks today?.

In a speech at the Turkish parliament in Ankara in July 2010, Mr Cameron said: ?I?m here to make the case for Turkey's membership of the EU. And to fight for it.?

He added that he wanted to "pave the road" for Turkey to join the EU, saying the country was "vital for our economy, vital for our security and vital for our diplomacy".

A European Union without Turkey at its heart was ?not stronger but weaker... not more secure but less... not richer but poorer?.

Sorry - before I reply, how is it quite the opposite?

titch juicy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> a splendid piece from a real life, bona fide,

> flesh and bone expert

>

> https://www.facebook.com/UniversityofLiverpool/vid

> eos/1293361974024537/

Ha ha ha ha! Seriously???!!! That's brilliant.

This man's entire career as a lecturer/professor in EU law rests on being an expert in and teaching EU law. If we no longer have EU law (and therefore no particular need for experts in it), do you not think he might be somewhat adversely affected (to put it very mildly) and therefore he has something of a vested interest?!!!

Actually, I just noticed you mentioned Ireland or Frankfurt, so please ignore my reference to the sunshine!

Azira Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Heh @ the comment about ignorance (particularly

> from someone who doesn't appear to know the basics

> of the EU insolvency and recovery regime). I

> think you mean "central banks" dearie.

>

> You are quite right that the BRRD affects credit

> institutions, but, as you'd used the incorrect

> terminology, it was unclear what you were talking

> about. And you also don't appear to understand

> how BRRD works. Bail-in converts lower ranking

> tiers of debt into equity, so hardly the person on

> the street.

>

> Before you start being rude about someone's

> alleged lack of knowledge on a topic, you may want

> to make sure you're using the correct terms.

>

With the greatest of respect, I think unless someone were choosing to be purposely obtuse it should be obvious what I meant by 'national' banks as opposed to 'high street' banks. I'm afraid in my field, when we talk about 'national' banks in this context, all the financial and regulatory lawyers around the table know what we are talking about.

Internationally, "national bank" is synonymous with "central bank," or a bank controlled by the national government of a country. Central banks set monetary policies within national economies. By the way that's a quote from Investopedia, but really, I think if that's your best point then there's not much more I want to add, as I don't really feel the need to justify using that well known term!

You will notice I haven't referred to you as "dearie" on that point. In that regard, while complaining about the condescension of others I note your attempt to be patronising by using that term. That's fine - I have a thicker skin than you appear to, but you'd do well to choose a better point by which to do so, I think.

As for how the BRRD works, well, it doesn't apply to central banks, so I think the debate on BRRD must end there mustn't it?

It's clear I didn't choose my words well and upset you by referring to your knowledge and so I apologise for that. I just thought that the reference to the BRRD (which has no application to the situation we were talking about - i.e. of a state defaulting) indicated only a limited level of knowledge. I should have been more diplomatic.

I wouldn't panic if I were you, in the (unlikely) event there is a 'Leave' majority vote this week. The sky won't fall in. Longer term we will also be able to enter into free trade agreements with huge markets like India and China, which we are barred from doing individually as part of the EU (the EU talks opened with India in relation to their massive economy in 2007, but still no great progress!). Australia is another Commonwealth country we have always had close ties with (as with India) but which we are barred from having our own free trade deal with as part of the EU.

There will be plenty of economic opportunities far exceeding those in the EU (in regard to which, after all, we are net importers, not net exporters). It would be a shame if because of scaremongering from people who cannot be trusted (eg Dodgy Dave), or people with vested interests, you took a short term view and left to move abroad to some EU country. Go for the sunshine by all means, or the food, but not for the wrong/short term reasons!

Renata's earlier post...

"It is for this reason that we jointly drafted a letter to residents to inform them of appropriate methods of disposing of unwanted furniture, white goods and other electricals when they move out.

Renata"

I don't doubt your good intentions Renata, but I suspect the people fly tipping are not doing so because they don't know the appropriate methods of disposal - I imagine they just can't be arsed and/or don't want to pay to dispose of their rubbish properly! No number of nicely worded letters trying to 'educate them' will have any effect.

Oh, I just read your next post and it seems it is indicative!

The Directive you refer to does not relate to national banks and nations defaulting - its relates to credit institutions operating in the private sector.

Also, and in any event the point about bail-ins is absurd - you have it the wrong way round - this actually makes the point against your argument. The whole idea of a so-called 'bail-in' is that creditors take the hit - i.e. us in the UK if and when other countries start to default - then we as creditors would in your bail-in scenario get screwed!

Azira Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What do you mean by "national banks" rather than

> high street banks? In any case, the Banking

> Resolution and Recovery Directive means that in

> the first instance there is a bail-in, rather than

> bail-out.

>

> robbin Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > It comes principally from national banks (for a

> > national bailout) not from high street banks

> and

> > if there is a default and a subsequent

> write-off

> > of monies loaned then there is a loss to the

> > national bank. All the WW2 loans were repaid

> by

> > us to the USA with interest - we didn't default

> > and they were not written off - you are

> comparing

> > apples and oranges.

Err, what do I mean by "national Banks" rather than "high street banks"

Hmmm, let's think... how about the following national banks: the Bank of England, Banque de France, Deutsche Bundesbank, Banca D'Italia, De Nederlandsche Bank... etc (as a few examples)

High Street Banks - (do you really need examples?)

Clear enough? I trust that question's not indicative of the limit of your knowledge of the issues?!

It comes principally from national banks (for a national bailout) not from high street banks and if there is a default and a subsequent write-off of monies loaned then there is a loss to the national bank. All the WW2 loans were repaid by us to the USA with interest - we didn't default and they were not written off - you are comparing apples and oranges.

Google Martin Schultz to find out his view - he's the President of the European Parliament. He is quite clear that there is no guarantee Dodgy Dave's February deal will be passed (in his Parliament), and until then he says it is not binding on anyone. Blah Blah, you seem completely certain, so are these other people out of their minds?

Surely there is material doubt over the true position. It might not be what you would like to hear, but that doesn't mean it's not so.

No. Read the article (and many others). It's nothing like as simple as you suggest.

rendelharris Wrote:

>

> We already have an agreement, made in February and

> to be implemented if we vote to remain, that

> Eurozone countries will have to bear the cost of

> any future bailout, not us:

>

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendu

> m-36456277

You really think it's that certain? It's not. Dodgy Dave's February 'agreement' is not in any EU treaty...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2016/feb/24/david-cameron-eu-deal-legally-binding-michael-gove-analysis-joshua-rozenberg

To put it another way, the answer may or may not lie in Section 5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 under the heading "lawful excuse". I'm not saying either way, but you might be able to answer your question (about whether it would be illegal) by reading that.

What about the price we will have to pay if we stay in and as seems likely Italy and/or Spain default like Greece did (but with a far, far larger bailout required and a much worse effect on EU growth)?

It's what the bond markets seem to be pointing towards - Japanese type stagnation for decades to come.

Short term cost to leaving, for sure. But we don't (or shouldn't) live for the short term only...